Tighten alcohol availability to reduce alcohol-related harms

Following last weeks blog post about alcohol availability this feels like the perfect follow on. As reported by Alcohol Policy UK in June IAS in the UK & FARE in Australia released this report looking at tightening alcohol availability to reduce alcohol-related harms.

A new report has called for tighter restrictions on alcohol availability to help address alcohol-related harms, including pressures on emergency departments, hospitals and the police.

Deprioritising government support for industry voluntary schemes in place of policies supported by evidence.

In the document’s foreword, Professor Robin Room states:

“The availability of alcohol is a crucial element in what happens with consumption trends and with rates of alcohol-related harm. Public policy needs to prioritise evidence-based controls on the availability of alcohol to reduce rates of harm.”

Ahead of the launch of the report, Kypros Kypri, Professor of Public Health at University of Newcastle, Australia said:

“There is strong evidence to show that earlier closing times can make a significant difference to the strain alcohol places on emergency services. In Sydney, bringing forward closing times to 3am was associated with a 25% reduction in alcohol-related presentations to the local hospital.”

UK policy calls – falling on deaf ears?

In 2016 the IAS released an extensive report on the 2003 Licensing Act, which said the interests of the licensed trade have benefited over those of local communities. Despite mounting calls to review licensing legislation in England, including from the subsequent Lord’s licensing committee, there appears no intention to fundamentally change national policy – perhaps not surprising within the immediate political climate.

Currently national policy may be best inferred from the 2016 modern crime prevention strategy which sets out three main alcohol-related crime and disorder objectives, including a pledge on ‘equipping the police and local authorities with the right powers’. Critics of the current Act though have also argued that enforcement powers are not fully utilised, possibly reflected by the falling number of premises being called for review. In addition the crime strategy emphasises building local partnerships through industry led schemes – an approach the latest IAS & FARE report calls to be replaced by those supported by firmer evidence. Indeed questions have been raised over the lack of evidence to support the impact of voluntary partnerships schemes, notably ‘Community Alcohol Partnerships’ (CAPs). In contrast, Cumulative Impact Policies do find overall favour in the latest report, albeit with some limitations.